Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Social validation, reciprocation, and sustainable orientation: Cultivating

“clean” codes of conduct through social influence
Tobias Otterbring a, *, Michał Folwarczny b
a
Department of Management, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
b
Discipline of Marketing, J.E. Cairnes School of Business & Economics, University of Galway, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The current research examined the effectiveness of two social influence strategies—reciprocity and social vali­
Sustainability dation—in promoting sustainable consumer behavior. In an initial behavioral field experiment (Study 1), con­
Environmental issues sumers were either exposed to a reciprocity, social validation, or control message distributed in the changing
Sustainable behaviors
rooms of a sporting goods store. The daily number of cleanups carried out by store employees were then
Social validation
Reciprocity
monitored as a function of message type. Results revealed that messages based on reciprocity and social vali­
Social influence dation led to a significant reduction in the number of cleanups compared to the control message, with no sig­
nificant difference between the reciprocity and social validation conditions. In a follow-up online experiment
with increased rigor and control (Study 2), participants were randomly assigned to a reciprocity, social vali­
dation, or control condition and subsequently indicated their willingness to shop sustainably. Consistent with the
findings from Study 1, both the reciprocity and social validation conditions outperformed the control condition
regarding participants’ willingness to engage in sustainable consumer behavior, with no significant difference
between the reciprocity and social validation conditions. Together, this research suggests that the strategic use of
reciprocity or social validation messages can help store managers reduce the environmental impact of con­
sumers’ shopping responses, while simultaneously decreasing operating costs.

1. Introduction Tactics to promote sustainable consumer behavior in the retail sector

Mitigating human-induced environmental harm necessitates a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Montzka et al., 2011). Over­
looked by conventional discussions, some changes in consumer behavior
can significantly reduce our environmental footprint (Wynes and
Nicholas, 2017). Sustainable consumption, a key goal of the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNDP, 2021), emphasizes the
environmentally friendly and socially responsible purchase, use, and
disposal of goods and services (Wolff and Schönherr, 2011). Sustainable
consumer behavior, which is the focal outcome of the current research,
refers to the conscious decisions of consumers to choose environmen­
tally friendly goods and services and to think about the broader social
and ethical impact of their behavior in the marketplace (Trudel, 2019).
Importantly, sustainable consumer behavior encompasses more than
just consumption. It also includes behaviors like energy conservation
and how consumers manage and utilize products (Soyer and Dittrich,
2021) as well as social actions linked to human cooperation (Boon-­
Falleur et al., 2022; Raworth, 2017).
should ensure business profitability while encouraging consumers to
adapt their behavior in an environmentally desirable way (Folwarczny
et al., 2022). Social influence strategies have proven influential across
industries, encouraging proenvironmental behaviors without compro­
mising business performance (Cialdini et al., 1990; Loschelder et al.,
2019; Terrier and Marfaing, 2015). Simple but effective messages often
embody these strategies (Baca-Motes et al., 2013; Goldstein et al., 2008;
Schultz et al., 2007). For example, social influence messages such as
“75% of the guests participated in our new resource savings program by
using their towels more than once” effectively encourage hotel guests to
reuse towels, thus reducing electricity and water consumption (Gold­
stein et al., 2008). This practice provides a double benefit by reducing
operating costs and promoting sustainability (Terrier and Marfaing,
2015). By employing messages akin to the one described above, a
mid-sized hotel in the U.S. can save approximately $500,000 annually at
a 66% occupancy rate (Baca-Motes et al., 2013). This underscores the
significant economic and environmental benefits that can be achieved
through the successful use of messages based on social influence

* Corresponding author. Department of Management, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.

E-mail address: tobias.otterbring@uia.no (T. Otterbring).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103612
Received 28 May 2023; Received in revised form 15 September 2023; Accepted 17 October 2023
Available online 21 October 2023
0969-6989/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny
strategies in retail and service industries.
Recent meta-analyses and quantitative literature reviews on nudging
and resource-efficient behaviors (Hummel and Maedche, 2019; Mertens
et al., 2022; Nisa et al., 2017) show that appeals based on decision in­
formation (e.g., social reference) are among the most effective. Yet, the
effectiveness of this type of information in increasing customers’ sus­
tainable orientation–defined as concern for environmental protection as
well as environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviors (Sun et al.,
2014)–depends on the specific social influence strategy used (Abra­
hamse and Steg, 2013). Moreover, the literature is inconclusive with
respect to which social influence strategies (e.g., reciprocity versus so­
cial validation) are most persuasive in inducing desirable behavioral
changes (Cialdini et al., 1991; Milkman et al., 2021b; Schultz et al.,
2007). In sum, social influence strategies are influential in promoting
sustainability, but it is unclear whether these strategies differ in their
effectiveness. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no studies conducted in
retail contexts have examined the extent to which the two widely used
social influence strategies of reciprocity (i.e., an internalized social norm
based on mutual exchange, wherein kindness is rewarded; Ashraf et al.,
2006; Gallucci and Perugini, 2000) and social validation (i.e., feedback
about the characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs that others approve of or
consider desirable; Ashforth et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2015) can promote
sustainable consumer behavior.
To fill this gap, the current research aimed to test the impact of
messages based on reciprocity and social validation under realistic
conditions using behavioral evidence, while also examining the external
validity of such strategies. To maximize the generalizability of our
studied social influence strategies, we investigate their impact and
applicability across study paradigms, samples, and settings. Doing so is
one of the best ways to examine the robustness and replicability of
former findings (Fabrigar et al., 2020; Otterbring et al., 2023a; Shrout
and Rodgers, 2018), which is particularly important when it comes to
sustainable consumer behavior, given the urgency of addressing this
societally relevant issue (Mäkivierikko et al., 2023; Siepelmeyer and
Otterbring, 2022; Yan et al., 2021).
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Reciprocity
The principle of reciprocity, rooted in social psychology, operates on
the premise that people are naturally inclined to return favors or acts of
kindness (Cialdini, 1984). In the area of sustainable consumer behavior,
the mechanism of reciprocity suggests that consumers perceive envi­
ronmentally friendly or socially responsible activities by brands as
gestures of goodwill. Because consumers feel obliged to reciprocate to
such activities, they are more likely to choose sustainable products or
align themselves with other environmentally friendly behaviors (Gris­
kevicius et al., 2012). In fact, humans have evolved as a social species
and cooperation with others is key for accessing resources that are
needed for survival and reproduction (Folwarczny et al., 2023;
Söderlund, 2022). From an evolutionary perspective, cooperation be­
tween genetically related people is beneficial (Otterbring and Fol­
warczny, 2022), but the benefits of cooperating with strangers are less
obvious. One reason for the latter relates to the principle of reciprocity,
because the recipient of a favor will feel obliged to give something back
in return (Nowak and Sigmund, 2005). Every human society known to
researchers relies heavily on this principle, implying that reciprocity is a
universal tool of social influence (Sundie et al., 2012). Reciprocity has
been frequently explored in disciplines ranging from game theory and
anthropology to social, cultural, and evolutionary psychology (e.g.,
Cialdini and Goldstein, 2002; Falk and Fischbacher, 2006; Hoffman
et al., 1998; Miller et al., 2017). Importantly, reciprocity is bidirectional,
meaning that people tend to reciprocate both benefits and punishments,
although the degree of reciprocity varies across cultures (Gächter and
Herrmann, 2009).
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612
Despite the potential of reciprocity to influence consumer responses,
little research has been conducted on the effects of reciprocity regarding
sustainable consumer behavior in retail and service settings. De Wulf
et al. (2001) found that a retail store’s perceived relationship invest­
ment—which is theoretically related to reciprocity—was positively
associated with relationship quality and ultimately behavioral loyalty.
Reciprocity is also positively associated with customer commitment,
indicating a positive link between this social influence principle and
long-term customer relationship facets (Palmatier et al., 2009). Simi­
larly, Bettencourt (1997) found that perceived support for customers, as
measured by items such as “This store really cares about my well-being,”
was positively associated with customer voluntary performance (CVP),
defined as “helpful, discretionary behaviors of customers that support
the ability of the firm to deliver service quality” (p. 384). Given that
these items resemble the mutual exchange process embedded in the
reciprocity principle, it is plausible that reciprocity-based messages are
positively associated with sustainable consumer behavior. Indeed, CVP
involves customers engaging in behaviors that are not necessarily ex­
pected of them, such as providing feedback, participating in
company-sponsored programs, or volunteering to help others (Dai et al.,
2023; Rosenbaum and Massiah, 2007; Yi et al., 2011). These behaviors
contribute significantly to improving the service delivery process and
typically boost organizational performance (Groth, 2005), meaning that
customers who think a firm is treating them well are more inclined to
reciprocate. Further, when sales personnel use reciprocity in the form of
discounts, customers show a higher propensity to purchase products and
engage in other acts of kindness (Blanchard et al., 2016). However, aside
from these studies examining the effect of reciprocity on
consumer-related outcomes, retail research has overlooked the role of
reciprocity-based communication in promoting sustainable consumer
behavior.
2.2. Social validation
The principle of social validation, also known as social proof, is based
on the recognition that individuals often judge the appropriateness of
their actions by what others do (Cialdini, 1984; Van Tonder et al., 2023).
In the context of sustainable consumer behavior, social validation can be
understood as follows: When consumers observe that a significant pro­
portion of their peers or influential figures endorse or adopt sustainable
products and practices, they are more likely to view such behaviors as
normative and desirable (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004; Otterbring,
2021b). This recognition creates a kind of social pressure that leads them
to align their own behavior with those of the larger group and thereby
act more sustainably themselves (Bicchieri and Xiao, 2009). The social
validation principle suggests that demonstrating widespread adoption of
environmentally friendly behaviors can be a catalyst for further sus­
tainable actions. This concept has been supported by empirical studies
highlighting the role of peer behavior and community norms in shaping
individual actions toward sustainability (Goldstein et al., 2008; Nolan
et al., 2008).
People who see others picking up their trash or who are exposed to
other forms of social validation messages designed to stimulate sus­
tainable behaviors tend to be less likely to leave trash in public places
(Cialdini et al., 1990; Reno et al., 1993). Goldstein et al. (2008) tested
the effectiveness of two social validation messages to encourage hotel
guests to reuse towels—a behavior aimed at reducing water and elec­
tricity waste. When they used a generic social validation message, such
as “the majority of guests in this hotel reuse their towels,” towel reuse
rates increased significantly compared to a control message emphasizing
the environmental benefits of reusing towels. Moreover, towel reuse
rates went up even further when the social validation message was
specific rather than generic, communicating that “the majority of guests
in this room reuse their towels” (Goldstein et al., 2008). However, not all
studies using similar social validation strategies provide conclusive re­
sults. For example, Mair and Bergin-Seers (2010) compared four
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny
different types of messages to promote hotel towel reuse. Other than a
tendency suggesting that all messages—including those based on social
validation—performed equally well in increasing towel reuse rates, it is
difficult to draw firm conclusions from their study because they did not
report whether there were statistically significant differences between
conditions.
The effectiveness of social validation messages in promoting sus­
tainable practices is contextually sensitive. In fact, such messages can
sometimes lead to an undesirable “boomerang” effect, whereby con­
sumers increase rather than decrease their consumption in an unsus­
tainable way (Schultz et al., 2007). Therefore, considering the lack of
former retail-relevant studies using social validation messages and the
fact that most prior studies using this principle have mainly been
investigated in relation to towel reusage or electricity consumption, it
remains to be examined whether social validation messages can effec­
tively promote sustainable consumer behavior in retail contexts.
2.3. Interim summary and hypotheses
People often reciprocate favors, generous gestures, and helpful be­
haviors performed by others (Cialdini, 1984; Sundie et al., 2012). In
retail and service settings, the use of the reciprocity principle has proven
successful in promoting purchases and various acts of kindness (Blan­
chard et al., 2016). A reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship
between a company and its customers also seems to make the customers
more inclined to engage in voluntary behaviors, such as helping other
customers (Rosenbaum and Massiah, 2007). Therefore, it is reasonable
to assume that the reciprocity principle can be applied to promote sus­
tainable consumer behavior.
The social validation principle is based on the concept that people,
especially when they feel uncertain about how to act, mimic the
behavior of the majority (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Prior work has
highlighted the effectiveness of this principle in terms of reducing lit­
tering in certain consumption contexts (Cialdini et al., 1990; Reno et al.,
1993). Accordingly, it is plausible that the social validation principle
might constitute another way of fostering sustainable consumer
behavior. Based on these findings and recent evidence highlighting the
effectiveness of reciprocity and social validation-based messages in
promoting desirable behavior change (e.g., Melnyk et al., 2022; Mertens
et al., 2022; Milkman et al., 2021b), we hypothesize:
H1. Compared to a control condition, reciprocity and social validation
messages increase consumers’ sustainable behaviors in retail stores.
“Willingness to do” is a frequently studied construct that refers to a
person’s propensity or predisposition to engage in a particular behavior
(Barber et al., 2012). This predisposition often serves as a precursor to
actual behavior and provides insight into the possible course of future
actions. Although the “willingness to do” construct is distinct from
behavioral intentions (Gibbons et al., 1998), these aspects tend to be
strongly positively correlated (Konuk and Otterbring, 2024), and typi­
cally serve as valid predictors of behavior (e.g., Pomery et al., 2009).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2. Compared to a control condition, reciprocity and social validation
messages increase consumers’ willingness to shop sustainably in retail
stores.
3. Overview of studies
In an initial behavioral field experiment with high ecological validity
(Study 1), we manipulate the message that consumers are exposed to in
the changing rooms of a sporting goods store and analyze the number of
necessary cleanups carried out by store employees. We test whether
messages based on two distinct social influence strategies can outper­
form a standard control message in cultivating customer cleanliness,
such that customers leave the changing rooms ordered rather than
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612
disorganized. Specifically, we investigate whether messages based on
reciprocity (e.g., “We are happy to help you–all you have to do is to X”)
and social validation (e.g., “75% of the customers in this store engage in
X”) can promote more sustainable consumer responses than a control
message that has no clear connection to any social influence strategy
(H1). Next, in a follow-up online experiment (Study 2), we conceptually
replicate the results from Study 1 using an improved experimental
design with increased rigor, control, and internal validity. More pre­
cisely, we examine whether reciprocity and social validation messages
can increase individuals’ willingness to shop sustainably in the same
retail context compared to control participants (H2).
4. Study 1: behavioral field experiment
Study 1 aimed to test H1 under ecologically valid conditions (i.e.,
settings that are generalizable to the real world outside the laboratory;
Kihlstrom, 2021) through a field study taking place during four
consecutive weeks at sporting goods store in a medium-sized Danish
city. In total, the data collection lasted for 21 days. The store contained
four changing rooms, where customers could try clothes for various
sporting and leisure activities. During the study, different signs were
used in the changing rooms, such that customers could be exposed to one
of three different messages: control, reciprocity, and social validation.
As such, the study used a single-factor design, with message type as the
between-subjects factor. Similar research designs have been used in
other field settings, both in recent research (Bergquist et al., 2021;
Milkman et al., 2021a; Staats et al., 2017) and in classic articles on social
influence (Cialdini et al., 1990; Kallgren et al., 2000; Reno et al., 1993).
In the control condition, customers were exposed to a sign that
simply asked them to return the apparel they did not intend to buy in the
cash register area. In the reciprocity condition, in contrast, customers
were exposed to a sign that emphasized that the employees working in
the store would be happy to put the apparel back in place (i.e., an act of
kindness), and all customers had to do was to leave it at the cash register
area. Finally, in the social validation condition, customers were exposed
to a sign announcing that 75% of other customers in this specific
sporting goods store leave the changing rooms ordered when they have
used them.
Two strategies were implemented to minimize confounding factors,
while maximizing rigor and control. First, customers could select a
changing room of their own choice without a store employee directing
them to a particular room, thus ensuring random assignment to the
different conditions. Second, to make the study design balanced, the
messages were altered between the different changing rooms, both be­
tween and within days (before vs. after lunch), ascertaining that all
message types were equally represented across the different changing
rooms during the study period (see Table A1 in the Appendix for a
representation of how the conditions were distributed between and
within days). Third, day of week was monitored as a relevant control
variable to isolate the effect of the experimental manipulation.
As the dependent variable, we used the daily number of necessary
cleanups1 carried out by store employees per condition (control vs.
reciprocity vs. social validation) during the study period of 21 days. We
define a cleanup as the act of removing litter, products, hangers, or
packages from a given changing room. One extreme value that scored
1
The frequency of cleanups in changing rooms has several implications for
sustainable consumer behavior. First, untidy environments can decrease con­
sumers’ willingness to act sustainably, reducing the effectiveness of anti-
littering appeals and even encouraging undesirable behaviors like theft
(Keizer et al., 2008). Second, dirty and dusty clothes like those lying on the
floor in a disorganized changing room lose consumer appeal, resulting in unsold
items and wasted resources in production. Thus, the impact of disorganized
changing rooms requiring cleanups extends beyond the immediate retail store
environment to broader sustainability efforts.
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny
more than two standard deviations away from the group-specific mean
of the dependent variable was treated as an outlier (Cowley, 2005;
Otterbring, 2020), and was therefore excluded from the analyses.
Including the outlier did not change the nature or significance of our
results. Note that the aggregated data points of 21 observations per
condition or 63 observations in total correspond to 56 observations per
condition and 168 total observations, given that the specific changing
rooms and time periods (i.e., before or after lunch) in which the signs
were implemented were combined into a total cleanup score per day for
each condition (see the Appendix for details). Each changing room was
equipped with a counter/calculator, which the employees were
instructed to press every time they had to clean a changing room. No
distinction was made between materially or marginally disorganized
changing rooms as long as a store employee deemed it necessary to
engage in a cleanup. This decision was made for pragmatic reasons to
make the study feasible to carry out in a real sporting goods store
without putting too much pressure on the store employees, but also to
boost the realism and relevance of our research (Morales et al., 2017;
Otterbring et al., 2023b). After all, store employees are the ones who
decide whether a given changing room needs a cleanup. Thus, regardless
of whether the room is extremely disorganized or only slightly messy,
store employees still need to clean it to make it tidy and appealing to
other customers. To minimize the likelihood of hypothesis guessing
among employees and enable them to serve incoming customers, the
cleanups-counting process was monitored by a confederate, not part of
the store staff, who summarized the number of cleanups per condition
each day.
4.1. Validation study
We conducted a validation study to test the effectiveness of our
manipulation instead of including a formal manipulation check in our
main study (cf. Gruijters, 2022; Otterbring et al., 2022b). We considered
the manipulation to be effective if (a) the control message was rated
highest of the three messages in terms of not conveying cues either to
kindness or majority-related aspects, (b) the social validation message
was rated highest in terms of conveying cues linked to majority-related
aspects, and (c) the reciprocity message was rated highest in terms of
conveying cues linked to kindness.
Forty-five participants (40.0% female; Mage = 40 years) recruited on
Prolific Academic read three messages (Control: “Please return the
apparel you don’t buy in the cash register area”; Social validation: “75%
of the customers in this store leave the changing rooms ordered when
they have used them”; Reciprocity: “We are happy to put the apparel
back in place for you–all you have to do is to leave it at the cash register
area”). For each statement, participants indicated their agreement (1 =
disagree strongly; 7 = agree strongly) on three items (“This message
focuses on the behavior of the majority”; “This message focuses on doing
something kind and the concept of ‘give and you will receive’”; “This
message neither contains cues to kindness nor the behavior of the
majority”).
As expected, the effectiveness of the manipulation was confirmed.
More precisely, planned contrasts through repeated-measures analyses
of variance (ANOVAs) revealed that the social validation message
(Msocial validation = 5.53, SD = 1.65) was evaluated as significantly more
related to the behavior of the majority than both other messages (F(1,
44) = 9.05, p = .004, η2 = 0.17), whereas the reciprocity message and
the control message did not differ from one another on this first aspect
(Mreciprocity = 4.44, SD = 1.87 vs. Mcontrol = 4.42, SD = 1.79; F < 1).
Similarly, the reciprocity message (Mreciprocity = 5.33, SD = 1.51) was
evaluated as significantly more related to cues linked to kindness than
both other messages (F(1, 44) = 36.79, p < .001, η2 = 0.46), with the
social validation message and the control message not differing signifi­
cantly on this second aspect (Msocial validation = 3.89, SD = 1.85 vs.
Mcontrol = 3.62, SD = 1.83; F < 1). Finally, the control message (Mcontrol
= 3.69, SD = 1.81) was evaluated as significantly higher in terms of not
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612
conveying cues either to kindness or majority-related aspects compared
to both other messages (F(1, 44) = 5.29, p = .026, η2 = 0.11), whereas
the social validation message and the reciprocity message did not differ
from one another on this third and final feature (Msocial validation = 2.89,
SD = 1.76 vs. Mreciprocity = 3.07, SD = 1.66; F < 1).
4.2. Results and discussion
To test our key hypothesis (H1), we investigated potential differ­
ences in the average number of daily cleanups by store employees as a
function of the specific message implemented in the store’s changing
rooms (control, reciprocity, or social validation). A one-way ANOVA on
this metric revealed a significant omnibus effect, F(2, 59) = 5.63, p =
.006, η2 = 0.16. Supporting H1, follow-up planned contrasts (Field,
2013; Otterbring and Lu, 2018; Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1985) found a
significant difference between the social influence conditions and the
control condition (t(59) = 3.18, p = .002),2 such that the number of
cleanups were consistently smaller in the reciprocity and social valida­
tion conditions compared to the control condition. Moreover, the reci­
procity condition did not differ significantly from the social validation
condition (t(59) = 1.12, p = .269), indicating that both social influence
strategies resulted in a similar reduction of cleanups; see Fig. 1.
To demonstrate robustness of these findings and given that sporting
goods stores typically have a larger number of customers closer to
weekends, we added weekday as a covariate in an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA). The inclusion of this control variable was deemed important
considering that several studies have found day of week effects on
consumer behavior (e.g., Bussière, 2011; Fitzsimmons, 1985; Khare and
Inman, 2009). Indeed, the covariate was significantly positively asso­
ciated with the number of cleanups, F(1, 58) = 38.53, p < .001, η2 =
0.40. Crucially, the effect of condition on the number of cleanups was
still significant and, if anything, just became stronger, F(2, 58) = 8.48, p
< .001, η2 = 0.23.
As a second robustness check and considering that the data violated
the assumptions for parametric tests in terms of normality and equality
Fig. 1. Daily number of cleanups across conditions.
Note. Vertical lines in the centers of the boxplots indicate medians. The shaded
areas on the right of the boxplots depict distributions of data points.
2
Despite their greater statistical power when testing theory-based pre­
dictions and their widespread adoption in consumer research and psychological
science (e.g., Rosenthal et al., 2000; Rosnow and Rosenthal, 1989; Otterbring
and Shams, 2019), an anonymous reviewer raised concerns regarding our use of
planned contrasts. For brevity, we present the alternative approach of relying
on post-hoc testing in the Appendix. Importantly, the nature and significance of
all our hypothesized results remain unchanged by using this different analytic
approach.
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny
of variance, we also conducted equivalent non-parametric tests. The
results of a Kruskal-Wallis test again revealed a significant difference
between conditions, H(2) = 9.52, p = .009. Follow-up contrasts using
Mann-Whitney’s U test found a significant difference between the social
influence conditions (Mdn = 7) and the control condition (Mdn = 11; Z
= 2.94, p = .003), thus offering additional support for H1. Further, the
reciprocity condition (Mdn = 7) did not differ significantly from the
social validation condition (Mdn = 7; Z = 0.90, p = .366).
In sum, regardless of the analytic approach used and the inclusion or
exclusion of a meaningful covariate, the results suggest that social in­
fluence strategies influenced the number of cleanups in the store, and
that both social influence strategies were equally efficient in reducing
cleanups. As both the mean and the median values indicated a daily
reduction by three to four cleanups by simply putting up one of these
social influence messages in the changing rooms, the present study
clearly communicates the persuasive potential of social influence.
5. Study 2: conceptual replication
Study 2 sought to conceptually replicate the effects reported in Study
1 on participants’ willingness to shop sustainably in the same retail
context, while simultaneously testing the generalizability of both these
social influence strategies. Study 1 was conducted in actual field settings
characterized by high external validity but lower internal validity. By
contrast, Study 2 was conducted under more controlled conditions,
which provide lower external but high internal validity (Alboqami,
2023; Arsenovic et al., 2023; Söderlund and Julander, 2009). Thus,
these studies are methodologically complementary.
A limitation of Study 1 was that we did not examine potential
alternative explanations for our findings. For instance, it could have
been antecedents linked to customer voluntary performance (CVP) that
drove our results rather than any of the two social influence messages.
Another possible confounding variable could be social desirability, or
the tendency to behave in a manner perceived as socially acceptable
(Larson, 2019). Indeed, previous research has shown that sustainable
behaviors, or the predisposition toward such actions, correlate with the
desire to present oneself in a socially desirable manner (Folwarczny
et al., 2023; Gasiorowska et al., 2023; Griskevicius et al., 2010). To
enhance rigor and control, we considered several established anteced­
ents of CVP and social desirability as covariates in Study 2 to isolate the
effect of our experimental manipulation on our dependent variable.
Additionally, the control condition in Study 1 conveyed a message
that may have influenced our results. To account for this potential error
source, we included a control condition in Study 2 in which no message
other than a fictitious store name was displayed. Moreover, the reci­
procity condition used in Study 1 could have been interpreted as con­
taining traces linked to another social influence principle (i.e., liking and
sympathy; Cialdini, 2003). Therefore, in Study 2, we adapted an
established reciprocity message used in previous related research (“You
can count on our employees acting sustainably, can they count on you?”;
Krupka and Croson, 2016). This message rests on the assumption that if
employees act sustainably and hence exhibit a behavior that is typically
perceived as positive and prosocial (Konuk and Otterbring, 2024), cus­
tomers should be more willing to reciprocate by acting sustainably
themselves.
A total of 209 US participants were recruited via Prolific Academic,
with 6 extreme values excluded prior to analysis based on the same
outlier criterion used in Study 1. The remaining 203 participants (48.8%
females, 48.8% males, 2.5% did not indicate their sex; Mage = 36 years,
SDage = 13; mean annual income = $46,400) were randomly assigned to
one of three conditions: control, reciprocity, or social validation.
Therefore, a between-subjects design was used in Study 2, where con­
dition assignment (control vs. reciprocity vs. social validation) served as
the between-subjects factor. We followed the principles of the World
Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) in conducting the study.
All participants agreed to an informed consent form, were paid
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612
regardless of whether they provided responses on all items, had the right
to contact the principal investigator for further information about the
study, and could withdraw at any time without adverse consequences.
The study was conducted using PsyToolkit, which is a free software
for conducting online experiments (Stoet, 2010, 2017). Prolific Aca­
demic, which we used for data collection in this study, provides
high-quality data in all critical aspects considered by the behavioral
research community, i.e., attention, comprehension, honesty, and reli­
ability; in fact, the average data quality on Prolific is considerably higher
than that of many other crowdsourced platforms, with this difference
sometimes being as large as Cohen’s d = 3.70 (Peer et al., 2022). To
further ensure high data quality, only participants with a Prolific
acceptance rate of 99% or higher were allowed to take part in the study.
In addition, to ensure that all participants understood the instructions,
we prescreened them through Prolific so that only US citizens who were
fluent in English were recruited. Some other crowdsourced platforms
have struggled with low data quality because many submissions are
completed by “bots”—computer programs that mimic human re­
spondents (Chmielewski and Kucker, 2020). Aside from the steps
mentioned earlier to ensure data quality, we also explored participants’
task completion time. Because the software we used automatically re­
cords the time participants spend answering the questions, we found
that only two participants, or less than 1% of the total sample, took 2
min or less to complete their tasks. This means that almost all partici­
pants had enough time to read the instructions.
Participants were only allowed to complete the study once because
(a) Prolific blocks repeated submissions (participants can only join a
study once), and (b) the software we use allows participants to log in
only once. All in all, we took multiple steps to ensure high data quality.
Our sample demographics do not differ substantially from a represen­
tative sample of US participants, suggesting that our manipulation,
rather than sample-specific characteristics, should be the main driver of
the effects reported in our analyses.
Across conditions, participants were pictorially exposed to a mock-
up entrance of a fictitious sporting goods store named “Spanp.” The
image was synthesized using the AI image generator, Midjourney (htt
ps://www.midjourney.com/app/). Participants were asked to imagine
themselves shopping in the depicted store. In the control condition,
participants simply saw the store’s brand name displayed above the
store entrance. In the reciprocity condition, participants were exposed to
the same image but with the slogan, “You can count on our employees
acting sustainably, can they count on you?” added (cf. Krupka and
Croson, 2016). Lastly, in the social validation condition, the slogan
displayed was, “75% of our customers shop sustainably” (cf. Goldstein
et al., 2008).
Participants’ willingness to engage in six sustainable consumer be­
haviors (i.e., paying extra for sustainable shopping bags, asking the
cashier not to wrap purchases to save materials, paying more for sus­
tainably made clothes, buying secondhand items to conserve resources,
buying less but higher quality items to reduce resource usage, donating
old clothes for recycling before buying new ones) served as our depen­
dent variable. These items were author-generated but closely mimicked
measures from previous related research (Baca-Motes et al., 2013;
Goldstein et al., 2008). Participants indicated their agreement with
performing each of the six sustainable actions on a scale ranging from
− 100 (Strongly disagree) to 100 (Strongly agree) and the items were
averaged to form a composite index of sustainable consumer behavior
(α = 0.73, omega = 0.73, CI 95 [0.66, 0.79]).
As sustainable behaviors can be perceived as socially desirable, care
was taken to address issues associated with response bias. Therefore,
participants also replied to a 16-item social desirability scale (Larson,
2019), which includes binary “True” or “False” statements such as,
“When I have made a promise, I keep it—no ifs, ands, or buts.” We
averaged the number of “true” answers to create a social desirability
index (α = .83, omega = 0.83, CI 95 [0.79, 0.86]). Further, past research
has identified three critical antecedents to CVP: customer commitment,
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny
overall customer satisfaction, and perceived support for customers
(Bettencourt, 1997). Therefore, we utilized Bettencourt’s (1997)
20-item scale designed to gauge CVP antecedents. To align with the
context of our study, we modified two items that originally referred
grocery stores by omitting the word “grocery.” Participants were asked
to express their agreement with each item, using a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scale
consisted of three items measuring customer commitment (e.g., “I am
very committed to this store”), three items assessing overall customer
satisfaction (e.g., “Based on all my experiences with this store, I am very
satisfied”), and 14 items examining perceived customer support (e.g.,
“This store genuinely cares about my well-being”). We computed index
variables for customer commitment (α = 0.85, omega = 0.86, CI 95
[0.82, 0.89]), overall customer satisfaction (α = 0.87, omega = 0.86, CI
95 [0.81, 0.90]), and perceived customer support (α = 0.95, omega =
0.86, CI 95 [0.82, 0.90]) by averaging the respective responses.
The study concluded with participants providing demographic in­
formation and completing three manipulation check items. Here, par­
ticipants were instructed to recall the “Spanp” store they viewed earlier
and indicate their agreement with three statements presented in a ran­
domized order to prevent order effects. Participants provided their re­
sponses pertaining to the statements on a scale from 1 (disagree
strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Each statement was designed to measure
the perception of different aspects related to the experimental condi­
tions, similar to the approach used in the validation study of Study 1: one
measured the perception of social validation (“The image of the store
emphasized the behavior of the majority”), another gauged the
perception of reciprocity (“The image of the store highlighted the theme
of reciprocity or ‘give and you will receive’”), and the last determined if
the control image was perceived as not related to any of these concepts
(“The image of the store did not include any cues related to reciprocity
or the behavior of the majority”). Importantly, the manipulation check
items were included after, as opposed before, the dependent variable.
This was done to ensure that any effect on this focal outcome would be
due to the manipulation in and of itself rather than demand or expec­
tancy effects (e.g., hypothesis guessing) stemming from the manipula­
tion check items (Rosenthal, 1994; Rosenthal and Rosnow, 2009).
Indeed, manipulation check items have sometimes been found to
manipulate participants’ subsequent responses (Kühnen, 2010), which
we actively avoided by including these items in the end of the survey
(Ejelöv and Luke, 2020; Hauser et al., 2018; O’Keefe, 2003; Sigall and
Mills, 1998).
5.1. Results and discussion
Manipulation Checks. To verify the effectiveness of our manipulation,
we performed three one-way ANOVAs on the manipulation check items.
We a found significant omnibus effect on the first ‘social validation’
item, F(2, 200) = 26.85, p < .001, η2 = 0.21. Planned contrasts revealed
that participants’ scores on this item were significantly higher in the
social validation condition (M = 5.24, SD = 1.98) than in both other
conditions (t(200) = 6.11, p < .001). Although the means differed
significantly also between the reciprocity condition (M = 4.29, SD =
1.57) and the control condition (M = 3.05, SD = 1.51; t(200) = 4.33, p <
.001), both these means were considerably lower.
We also found a significant omnibus effect on the second ‘reciprocity’
item, F(2, 200) = 8.05, p < .001, η2 = 0.07. As expected, planned con­
trasts revealed that participants’ scores on this item were significantly
higher in the reciprocity condition (M = 3.89, SD = 1.76) than in both
other conditions (t(200) = 3.90, p < .001), with no significant difference
between the control condition (M = 3.06, SD = 1.66) and the social
validation condition (M = 2.76, SD = 1.79; t(200) = 0.97, p = .331).
Finally, there was a significant omnibus effect on the third ‘control’
item, F(2, 200) = 29.09, p < .001, η2 = 0.23. As anticipated, planned
contrasts revealed that that participants in the control condition scored
significantly higher on this item (M = 5.33, SD = 1.66) compared to
6
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612
those in the other two conditions (t(200) = 7.59, p < .001), with no
significant difference between the social validation condition (M = 3.10,
SD = 1.96) and the reciprocity condition (M = 3.46, SD = 1.74; t(200) =
1.20, p = .232). Taken together, these analyses indicate that our
manipulation was successful.
Main Analyses. A one-way ANOVA on participants’ willingness to
engage in sustainable consumer behavior yielded a significant omnibus
effect, F(2, 200) = 4.08, p = .018, η2 = 0.04. Consistent with our
theorizing (H2), follow-up planned contrasts revealed that both social
influence conditions differed significantly from the control condition (t
(200) = 2.77, p = .006), such that participants were significantly more
willing to engage in sustainable consumer behavior in the reciprocity
and social validation conditions compared to the control condition; see
Fig. 2. Moreover, the reciprocity condition did not differ significantly
from the social validation condition (t(200) = 0.82, p = .413).
We then tested the robustness of these results by performing an
ANCOVA with the following covariates: customer commitment, global
customer satisfaction, perceived support for customers, and social
desirability. The overall model explained slightly more than 20 percent
of the variance in participants’ willingness to engage in sustainable
consumer behavior (R2 = 0.225). Notably, the effect of experimental
condition remained significant, F(2, 196) = 4.15, p = .017, η2 = 0.04.
There was also a significant positive association between customer
commitment and willingness to shop sustainably, F(1, 196) = 10.63, p =
.001, η2 = 0.05. However, the other three covariates were not signifi­
cantly associated our focal outcome: global customer satisfaction, F(1,
196) = 0.45, p = .503, η2 < 0.01; perceived support for customers, F(1,
196) = 0.01, p = .911, η2 < 0.01; social desirability, F(1, 196) < 0.01, p
= .925, η2 < 0.01.3
In sum, Study 2 shows that both social influence conditions,
regardless of whether they were based on reciprocity or social valida­
tion, consistently outperformed the control condition in increasing
participants’ willingness to engage in sustainable consumer behavior. As
such, we conceptually replicate the main findings from Study 1 and
demonstrate a considerable generalizability of different reciprocity and
social validation manipulations.
Fig. 2. Participants’ willingness to engage in sustainable consumer behavior.
Note. Vertical lines in the centers of the boxplots indicate medians. The shaded
areas on the right of the boxplots depict distributions of data points. Some data
points exceed the response format limits due to the jittering function used in R
for the purpose of making data visualizations clearer.
3
Exploratory analyses revealed that none of our control variables mediated
or moderated the effect of our experimental manipulation on participants’
willingness to engage in sustainable consumer behavior.
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny
6. General discussion
In the current research, we examined whether using messages based
on two social influence principles—reciprocity and social vali­
dation—generates more sustainable behaviors than applying control
messages that are not based on any social influence principle. Moreover,
we tested the replicability, generalizability, and cross-cultural stability
of social validation messages by combining behavioral data from a retail
field study at a Danish sporting goods store with US participants’ will­
ingness to shop sustainably in a controlled online experiment.
In Study 1, we found that messages based either on reciprocity or
social validation in the changing rooms of a sporting goods store reduced
the daily number of cleanups carried out by store employees by
approximately 30% compared to a neutral control message, with both
social influence messages being equally effective in cultivating customer
cleanliness (i.e., displaying a sustainable consumer behavior). In Study
2, we replicated these findings in a controlled online experiment and
found that reciprocity and social validation messages effectively
increased participants’ willingness to engage in sustainable consumer
behavior. Further, we found no significant difference between these two
messages, underscoring their generalizability across cultures and con­
texts. Hence, our findings indicate that messages based on reciprocity
and social validation can be used to increase sustainable consumer
behavior not only in well-researched English-speaking nations, such as
the US, but also in Scandinavia. Our findings are consistent with the
extensive literature demonstrating the effectiveness of social influence
strategies in influencing desired behavioral outcomes in contexts other
than retailing (e.g., Baca-Motes et al., 2013; Cialdini et al., 1990;
Goldstein et al., 2008; Loschelder et al., 2019; Schultz et al., 2007).
6.1. Theoretical contributions
Conceptual replications, in which researchers test the same under­
lying theory using different methods or in different contexts, offer
notable advantages over direct replications. First, they play a critical
role in improving the generalizability of results by ensuring that findings
do not depend only on specific experimental conditions, manipulations,
measures, or sample characteristics (Schmidt, 2009). Second, concep­
tual replications help refine and advance theory. By using different
methods or sample types, they allow for a more nuanced understanding
of the conditions under which a phenomenon occurs (Crandall and
Sherman, 2016). Finally, they can highlight boundary conditions and
help delineate the contexts in which a given theory does and does not
hold (Earp and Trafimow, 2015). These benefits underscore the value of
conceptual replications in strengthening and extending scientific
knowledge.
Our work was inspired by the conceptual replication approach, given
its greater ability to progress and test theories across methods (Crandall
and Sherman, 2016; Derksen and Morawski, 2022; Otterbring et al.,
2022a). Study 1 focused on increasing sustainable consumer behavior in
terms of customers leaving changing rooms tidy rather than disorga­
nized, leading to fewer cleanups, whereas Study 2 focused on partici­
pants’ willingness to shop sustainably. Both these studies tested
hypotheses based on the same social influence principles (reciprocity
and social validation). Accordingly, the current research used illustra­
tive data to test and provide empirical support for important parts of the
social influence framework, as called for to bring a better balance be­
tween theory testing and methodological matters (Sutton and Staw,
1995).
Considering that existing studies on related topics are often based
solely on self-report (Bateson and Martin, 2021; Baumeister et al., 2007;
Cialdini, 2009), our approach of combining behavioral evidence (Study
1) with self-report (Study 2) attests to the generalizability and
real-world implications of our research (Berkman and Wilson, 2021;
Doliński, 2018). Specifically, our findings suggest that scenario-based
online experiments with high rigor and control produce comparable
7
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612
results as “noisy” field studies with high ecological validity, despite their
vastly different settings, samples, and ways of capturing the focal vari­
able of interest (self-report vs. real behavior). This insight is important
for scholars conducting retail-relevant research for at least two primary
reasons. First, self-report data should not automatically be discarded, at
least not in experimental settings (online as well as offline) where the
perceived realism has been boosted through stimuli resembling the
actual retail store environment (Morales et al., 2017). Second, given that
consumer research is a contextually sensitive discipline (Otterbring
et al., 2020), which overlaps with other adjacent fields wherein
lab-based and online studies often yield findings that are in direct
contrast to results obtained from actual field settings (Mitchell, 2012),
scholars who conduct research in retail and service settings can never­
theless rest assured that controlled experiments that closely mimic
naturalistic conditions can be used to draw accurate inferences about
consumer behavior “in the wild.”
Although reciprocity has been shown to be successful in changing
people’s behavior and willingness to act in a variety of disciplines (e.g.,
Cialdini and Goldstein, 2002; Falk and Fischbacher, 2006; Hoffman
et al., 1998; Miller et al., 2017), few studies have tested the effectiveness
of this social influence principle with respect to sustainable consumer
behavior. Similarly, previous research on sustainable consumer
behavior has largely focused on the role of social validation in the
hospitality industry (Baca-Motes et al., 2013; Goldstein et al., 2008;
Terrier and Marfaing, 2015), but has neglected other empirical contexts.
Our work underscores the broad utility of two distinct social influence
principles, thereby contributing to the literature by showing that reci­
procity and social validation can promote sustainable consumer
behavior and consumers’ willingness to shop sustainably both on-site
and online. As such, the findings reported herein document that the
umbrella framework of social influence can be effectively extended to
sustainable consumer behavior in the retail environment.
In our second study, we controlled for social desirability bias and
three established antecedents of CVP (Bettencourt, 1997), finding that
the effectiveness of messages based on reciprocity and social validation
predicted customers’ intentions to shop sustainably even after ac­
counting for these theoretically relevant control variables. Interestingly,
only one of the three CVP antecedents (customer commitment) was
positively associated with our focal outcome, indicating that our find­
ings cannot solely be explained by CVP facets. Nevertheless, the current
results contribute to the CVP literature by showing—beyond the social
influence focus of the present studies—that customer commitment is
another influential predictor of consumers’ willingness to shop
sustainably.
6.2. Managerial implications
Because we find reciprocity and social validation messages to inde­
pendently reduce the number of cleanups performed by employees at
sporting goods stores (Study 1), and to consistently increase consumers’
willingness to engage in sustainable consumer behavior (Study 2), retail
managers can easily apply our results to maximize the effectiveness of
their sustainability-oriented policies. Indeed, given the small costs and
little effort retailers need to devote for disseminating social influence
messages, our findings demonstrate that such messages have the po­
tential to promote behaviors recommended to address environmental
challenges, while also being financially beneficial for businesses. Such
strategies may be considerably safer to implement compared to
communicating about environmental challenges or simply presenting
facts associated with global warming, given that these latter message
types paradoxically can induce more unsustainable consumption re­
sponses (Folwarczny et al., 2021; Morris et al., 2019).
Retailers and marketers can harness these principles to design more
effective sustainability campaigns. For instance, brands might offer eco-
friendly incentives or rewards, capitalizing on the innate human ten­
dency to reciprocate acts of kindness (Cialdini, 1984). Similarly, by
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny
spotlighting consumers who engage in sustainable practices, companies
can leverage the power of social validation, as individuals often model
their behavior after peers (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Thus, inte­
grating these social influence strategies can lead to more impactful and
actionable sustainability initiatives in the retail landscape.
Apart from promoting sustainable shopping responses, our findings
can be used in communication campaigns for a wider audience. Contrary
to evidence suggesting that different types of communication lead to
different outcomes (e.g., Yadav et al., 2011), we find that both printed
messages and online appeals lead to an increased willingness to act
sustainably. Similarly, we find that both reciprocity and social valida­
tion are equally effective in terms of promoting sustainable consumer
behavior. Therefore, practitioners can apply our findings by adapting
social influence messages to the communication format that is best
suited to meet unique organizational, institutional, or firm-related goals
(cf. Zielke et al., 2023). This is particularly important from a moral
standpoint (Elbæk et al., 2023), because using social validation mes­
sages that emphasize how the majority act may be both unrealistic and
unethical if such communication is based on false information, poten­
tially leading to negative side effects with costly consequences. Practi­
tioners can avoid lying to their target audience by using
reciprocity-based messages that communicate actual engagement in
caring for the planet rather than relying on immoral messages linked to
“greenwashing” or false claims based on social validation. Relatedly, in
the age of personalized online communications, which can be substan­
tially more effective in shaping desired responses than a “one-size-­
fits-all” approach (Kosinski et al., 2013; Matz et al., 2017), tailoring
social influence strategies to consumers’ online behavioral footprints (e.
g., based on likes, comments, and sharing of content) could lead to even
stronger effects of interventions aimed at promoting sustainable con­
sumer behavior (Folwarczny and Otterbring, 2021; Youyou et al., 2015).
Recently, an increasing number of retail-related studies have
emphasized the importance of improving operational efficiency,
including that related to sustainability (e.g., Gupta et al., 2023; Prentice
and Nguyen, 2020). One emerging pathway to efficiency optimization,
as suggested by our findings, is to reduce in-store cleanups. Indeed,
when retailers minimize the number of cleanups, they can effectively
allocate their human resources to value-adding tasks such as providing
superior customer service. By incorporating messages based on social
validation and reciprocity in store design, our results indicate that retail
managers can reduce the likelihood of customers leaving changing
rooms careless, cluttered, and chaotic. These strategies not only yield
cost savings in terms of cleaning supplies and materials but could
potentially also improve the overall customer experience, leading to
more favorable merchandise evaluations and increased brand loyalty
(Chen, 2015; Cortiñas et al., 2004; Doucé et al., 2014).
Together, we demonstrate the effectiveness of reciprocity and social
validation messages, irrespective of the precise context in which they are
implemented (behavioral field study vs. controlled online experiment)
and the specific communication format adopted (printed messages vs.
online appeals). Considering that intentions and actual behaviors do not
always overlap (Gidlöf et al., 2021; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007), and
that field studies and controlled experiments have different strengths
(Berkowitz and Donnerstein, 1982; Otterbring, 2021a), our work offers
complementary support for our theorizing across study paradigms,
samples, and settings. Given the generalizability of our results, they
should be particularly relevant for retail practice.
6.3. Limitations and future research
Although a critic might argue that our focal behavioral outcome in
Study 1 has little to do with sustainability, we contend that the fre­
quency of cleanups is strongly associated with consumers’ environ­
mental impact. First, people who are exposed to disorganized
environments (e.g., trash left in changing rooms) become less inclined to
engage in sustainable behaviors and are more inclined to litter and
8
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612
neglect anti-littering appeals (Cialdini et al., 1990; Kallgren et al., 2000;
Schultz et al., 2013). Second, littered environments can activate social
norms that lead to an increase in other undesirable behaviors, such as
various acts of immorality (Cialdini, 2003a,b; Cialdini et al., 1991;
Keizer et al., 2008). As such, the effects of disorganized changing rooms
(requiring more frequent cleanups) go far beyond the changing rooms
themselves, with consumers who are confronted with such spaces being
less likely to recycle and conserve energy themselves (Bergquist et al.,
2021; Keizer et al., 2008; Reno et al., 1993). This, in turn, risks resulting
in detrimental effects from a sustainability perspective. For instance,
leaving clothes on the floor in changing rooms may make those clothes
dirty, dusty, and undesirable, leading to some pieces of apparel not
being sold at all due to contamination and contagion concerns by con­
sumers (Argo et al., 2006; Castro et al., 2013; Morales and Fitzsimons,
2007; Rozin et al., 1994). Consequently, consumers’ reluctance to buy
such clothes implies wasted resources in terms of overproduction of
goods, including raw materials, water, and electricity needed to produce
clothing. If cleanups could be reduced across multiple industries, busi­
nesses, and brands, the net effect might help to decrease overproduction
of certain goods, while simultaneously making customers less likely to
litter (Bergquist et al., 2021; Cialdini et al., 1990; Kallgren et al., 2000).
Despite the use of behavioral data in Study 1, we only compared one
reciprocity message with one social validation message. Although no
differences were found between these two messages across studies, there
could still be some situations under which customers respond differently
after being exposed to such communication. The existing literature has
identified a discrepancy between intention and behavior (de Mesquita
et al., 2023; Sheeran and Webb, 2016), particularly regarding sustain­
able consumer responses (Loebnitz et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2019).
Therefore, to fully test the effectiveness of different messages based on
reciprocity and social validation, further research is warranted, prefer­
ably with additional behavioral evidence (Cialdini et al., 1990; Gold­
stein et al., 2008).
Considering that the content of the reciprocity and social validation
messages used in Studies 1–2 was almost identical from a conceptual
point of view, with both these conditions outperforming the control
condition across studies, we are confident that our work is generalizable
and applies to consumers in both Denmark and the US. If anything, the
fact that we conducted our studies in different countries should be
perceived as a strength, given the prevalent WEIRD bias in the academic
literature (Henrich et al., 2010), with most studies being based on
samples from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic
societies (i.e., WEIRD samples), typically in the form of North American
university students or online panel participants. However, we did not
collect psychographic data in our behavioral field study, although pre­
vious work suggests that customers’ nationality and certain individual
differences factors may moderate the effects of social influence strate­
gies on behavioral and attitudinal responses (Cialdini et al., 1999; Pet­
tifor et al., 2017). Controlling for various psychographic variables (e.g.,
consumers’ prosocial and cooperative tendencies as well as their
altruism levels) may help to further generalize our obtained results,
beyond what we have already done through our combination of
behavioral data from actual field settings in Denmark with a controlled
online experiment on US participants. Future research should address
this possibility and should optimally seek to shed light on the psycho­
logical mechanisms driving our obtained results (mediation) as well as
the boundary conditions explaining under what precise circumstances
our findings hold (moderation). Nevertheless, it should be stressed that
consumers in real retail settings are often skeptical when requested to fill
out lengthy survey instruments simply to help researchers rule out
alternative explanations or isolate their studied effects (Cialdini, 2009).
Therefore, considering that some of the major strengths of field studies
are realism, relevance, and behavioral evidence rather than rigor and
control, they should not be assessed using the same evaluation criteria as
studies conducted under more controlled conditions (Otterbring et al.,
2023b).
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612

Declaration of competing interest Acknowledgement

The authors do not have any conflict of interest to disclose. 50% of the authors contributed actively to the current manuscript.
Order of authorship was determined by a reciprocity agreement.
Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Appendix
Table A1
(Study 1): Distribution of conditions between and within days. The store was closed on Sundays.

Day Weekday Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4

1, Before Lunch Tuesday C SV R R

1, After Lunch Tuesday R C SV R
2, Before Lunch Wednesday SV R C C
2, After Lunch Wednesday C SV R C
3, Before Lunch Thursday R C SV SV
3, After Lunch Thursday SV R C SV
4, Before Lunch Friday C SV R R
4, After Lunch Friday R C SV R
5, Before Lunch Saturday SV R C C
5, After Lunch Saturday C SV R C
6, Before Lunch Monday R C SV SV
6, After Lunch Monday SV R C SV
7, Before Lunch Tuesday C SV R R
7, After Lunch Tuesday R C SV R
8, Before Lunch Wednesday SV R C C
8, After Lunch Wednesday C SV R C
9, Before Lunch Thursday R C SV SV
9, After Lunch Thursday SV R C SV
10, Before Lunch Friday C SV R R
10, After Lunch Friday R C SV R
11, Before Lunch Saturday SV R C C
11, After Lunch Saturday C SV R C
12, Before Lunch Monday R C SV SV
12, After Lunch Monday SV R C SV
13, Before Lunch Tuesday C SV R R
13, After Lunch Tuesday R C SV R
14, Before Lunch Wednesday SV R C C
14, After Lunch Wednesday C SV R C
15, Before Lunch Thursday R C SV SV
15, After Lunch Thursday SV R C SV
16, Before Lunch Friday C SV R R
16, After Lunch Friday R C SV R
17, Before Lunch Saturday SV R C C
17, After Lunch Saturday C SV R C
18, Before Lunch Monday R C SV SV
18, After Lunch Monday SV R C SV
19, Before Lunch Tuesday C SV R R
19, After Lunch Tuesday R C SV R
20, Before Lunch Wednesday SV R C C
20, After Lunch Wednesday C SV R C
21, Before Lunch Thursday R C SV SV
21, After Lunch Thursday SV R C SV
Note: C = Control; R = Reciprocity; SV = Social Validation. The sporting goods store had four changing rooms and the different conditions were altered
before and after lunch each day for 21 days. Therefore, the total number of datapoints can be computed as follows: 4 (changing rooms) × 2 (before lunch
and after lunch) × 21 days of data collection = 168. Considering that we had three distinct conditions, which were equally represented, we get 168/3 = 56
observations per condition.

Alternative Analytic Approach

In our main analyses, we relied on planned contrasts, which are statistical procedures for focused and theory-based predictions rather than more
vague omnibus questions (Rosenthal et al., 2000). Contrasts are characterized by greater statistical power coupled with improved conceptual clarity
when investigating such focused predictions (Rosnow and Rosenthal, 1996) and can be described as “1 df tests of significance for comparing the
pattern of obtained group means to predicted values, with predictions made on the basis of theory” (Rosnow and Rosenthal, 1989, p. 1281). Although
researchers “may not think of t as a test for comparing more than two means with the predictions made from theory […] this application of t can be
very useful” (Rosnow and Rosenthal, 1996, p. 333). Still, as an alternative to planned contrasts, post-hoc tests can be also performed. Indeed, “many
researchers engage in a kind of ‘Simon says game’ in which they believe they must […] perform a preliminary pirouette of significance tests on
unrelated effects before they feel it is ‘safe’ to address their specific prediction of interest” (Rosnow and Rosenthal, 1996, p. 331). To counter concerns
raised by an anonymous reviewer about our use of planned contrasts, we performed a series of post-hoc tests using Fisher’s Least Significant Difference
(LSD). This post-hoc test should generally be avoided in the case of many experimental conditions, as it provides weak control of Type I errors under

9
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612

such circumstances. However, the LSD procedure is recommended in the specific case of three experimental conditions (as in the current research),
given that it then maximizes statistical power while simultaneously controlling for Type I errors through the omnibus ANOVA test (Baguley, 2018;
Howell, 2012). Accordingly, we relied on the LSD procedure in our supplementary analyses presented below.

Study 1

In further support of H1, follow-up post-hoc tests using Fisher’s LSD found a significant difference between the control condition (M = 12.05, SD =
4.93) and the reciprocity condition (M = 9.14, SD = 4.52; p = .032) as well as between the control condition and the social validation condition (M =
7.65, SD = 3.12; p = .002). However, the reciprocity condition did not differ significantly from the social validation condition (p = .269). Thus, the
number of cleanups was consistently smaller in the reciprocity and social validation conditions compared to the control condition.

Study 2

Manipulation Checks

Post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) on the first manipulation check item linked to the behavior of the majority revealed that all conditions differed
significantly from one another (all ps ≤ .001). Importantly, however, the highest mean emerged in the social validation condition (M = 5.24, SD =
1.98), with considerably lower means in the reciprocity condition (M = 4.29, SD = 1.57) and the control condition (M = 3.05, SD = 1.51). Similar post-
hoc tests on the second manipulation check item linked to the concept of ‘give and you will receive’ found, as desired, that the reciprocity condition (M
= 3.89, SD = 1.76) differed significantly from both the control condition (M = 3.06, SD = 1.66; p = .005) and the social validation condition (M = 2.76,
SD = 1.79; p < .001), with no difference between the latter two conditions (p = .331). Finally, post-hoc tests (LSD) on the last manipulation check item
linked neither to reciprocity nor social validation found, consistent with a successful manipulation, that the control condition (M = 5.33, SD = 1.66)
differed significantly from both the reciprocity condition (M = 3.46, SD = 1.74; p < .001) and the social validation condition (M = 3.10, SD = 1.96; p <
.001), with no significant difference between the latter two conditions (p = .232).

Main Results

Attesting to the robustness of our main findings, and in line with H2, follow-up post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) found a significant difference between
the control condition (M = 23.46, SD = 29.48) and the reciprocity condition (M = 34.17, SD = 32.85; p = .041) as well as between the control
condition and the social validation condition (M = 38.46, SD = 28.96; p = .006). However, the reciprocity condition did not differ significantly from
the social validation condition (p = .413). As such, participants’ intentions to shop sustainably was consistently higher in the reciprocity and social
validation conditions compared to the control condition.

References Blanchard, S.J., Carlson, K.A., Hyodo, J.D., 2016. The favor request effect: requesting a
favor from consumers to seal the deal. J. Consum. Res. 42 (6), 985–1001.
Boon-Falleur, M., Grandin, A., Baumard, N., Chevallier, C., 2022. Leveraging social
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., 2013. Social influence approaches to encourage resource
cognition to promote effective climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 12 (4),
conservation: a meta-analysis. Global Environ. Change 23 (6), 1773–1785.
332–338.
Alboqami, H., 2023. Trust me, I’m an influencer!-Causal recipes for customer trust in
Bussière, D., 2011. The day of the week effect in consumer behavior: analyzing utilitarian
artificial intelligence influencers in the retail industry. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
and hedonistic consumer modes. J. Promot. Manag. 17 (4), 418–425.
72, 103242.
Castro, I.A., Morales, A.C., Nowlis, S.M., 2013. The influence of disorganized shelf
Argo, J.J., Dahl, D.W., Morales, A.C., 2006. Consumer contamination: how consumers
displays and limited product quantity on consumer purchase. J. Market. 77 (4),
react to products touched by others. J. Market. 70 (2), 81–94.
118–133.
Arsenovic, J., Edvardsson, B., Otterbring, T., Tronvoll, B., 2023. Money for nothing: the
Chen, S.C., 2015. Customer value and customer loyalty: is competition a missing link?
impact of compensation on customers’ bad-mouthing in service recovery encounters.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 22, 107–116.
Market. Lett. 34 (1), 69–82.
Chmielewski, M., Kucker, S.C., 2020. An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the
Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H., Corley, K.G., 2008. Identification in organizations: an
impact on study results. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11 (4), 464–473.
examination of four fundamental questions. J. Manag. 34 (3), 325–374.
Cialdini, R.B., 2003a. Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr. Dir.
Ashraf, N., Bohnet, I., Piankov, N., 2006. Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Exp.
Psychol. Sci. 12 (4), 105–109.
Econ. 9, 193–208.
Cialdini, R.B., 2003b. Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things. Quill, New York.
Baca-Motes, K., Brown, A., Gneezy, A., Keenan, E.A., Nelson, L.D., 2013. Commitment
Cialdini, R.B., 2009. We have to break up. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4 (1), 5–6.
and behavior change: evidence from the field. J. Consum. Res. 39 (5), 1070–1084.
Cialdini, R.B., 1984. Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Collins.
Baguley, T., 2018. Serious Stat: A Guide to Advanced Statistics for the Behavioral
Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., 2002. The science and practice of persuasion. Cornell
Sciences”. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 43 (2), 40–50.
Barber, N., Kuo, P.J., Bishop, M., Goodman Jr., R., 2012. Measuring psychographics to
Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., 2004. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu.
assess purchase intention and willingness to pay. J. Consum. Market. 29 (4),
Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621.
280–292.
Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., Reno, R.R., 1991. A focus theory of normative conduct: a
Bateson, M., Martin, P., 2021. Measuring Behaviour: an Introductory Guide”. Cambridge
theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior.
University Press.
Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24, 201–234.
Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., Funder, D.C., 2007. Psychology as the science of self-
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., Kallgren, C.A., 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct:
reports and finger movements: whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspect.
recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Sci. 2 (4), 396–403.
Psychol. 58 (6), 1015–1026.
Bettencourt, L.A., 1997. Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in
Cialdini, R.B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D.W., Butner, J., Gornik-Durose, M., 1999.
service delivery. J. Retailing 73 (3), 383–406.
Compliance with a request in two cultures: the differential influence of social proof
Bergquist, M., Blumenschein, P., Karinti, P., Köhler, J., Ramos, É.M.S., Rödström, J.,
and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Ejelöv, E., 2021. Replicating the focus theory of normative conduct as tested by
Bull. 25 (10), 1242–1253.
Cialdini et al. (1990). J. Environ. Psychol. 74, 101573.
Cortiñas, M., Elorz, M., Villanueva, M.L., 2004. Retail store loyalty management via an
Berkman, E.T., Wilson, S.M., 2021. So useful as a good theory? The practicality crisis in
analysis of heterogeneity of the service elements. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum.
(social) psychological theory. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16 (4), 864–874.
Res. 14 (4), 407–437.
Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., 1982. External validity is more than skin deep: some
Cowley, E., 2005. Views from consumers next in line: the fundamental attribution error
answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. Am. Psychol. 37 (3), 245–257.
in a service setting. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 33 (2), 139–152.
Bicchieri, C., Xiao, E., 2009. Do the right thing: but only if others do so. J. Behav. Decis.
Crandall, C.S., Sherman, J.W., 2016. On the scientific superiority of conceptual
Making 22 (2), 191–208.
replications for scientific progress. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 66, 93–99.

10
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny
Dai, Y.D., Liu, Y.C., Zhuang, W.L., Wang, C.H., 2023. Using social exchange perspective
to explain customer voluntary performance behavior. Serv. Ind. J. 43 (9–10),
764–784.
de Mesquita, J.M.C., Shin, H., Urdan, A.T., Pimenta, M.T.C., 2023. Measuring the
intention-behavior gap in service failure and recovery: the moderating roles of
failure severity and service recovery satisfaction. Eur. J. Market. 57 (7), 1826–1853.
Derksen, M., Morawski, J., 2022. Kinds of replication: examining the meanings of
‘conceptual replication’ and ‘direct replication. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17 (5),
1490–1505.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Iacobucci, D., 2001. Investments in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. J. Market. 65 (4),
33–50.
Doliński, D., 2018. Is psychology still a science of behaviour? Social Psychological
Bulletin 13 (2), 1–14.
Doucé, L., Janssens, W., Swinnen, G., Van Cleempoel, K., 2014. Influencing consumer
reactions towards a tidy versus a messy store using pleasant ambient scents.
J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 351–358.
Earp, B.D., Trafimow, D., 2015. Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in
social psychology. Front. Psychol. 6 (621), 1–11.
Ejelöv, E., Luke, T.J., 2020. Rarely safe to assume”: evaluating the use and interpretation
of manipulation checks in experimental social psychology. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 87,
103937.
Elbæk, C.T., Mitkidis, P., Aarøe, L., Otterbring, T., 2023. Subjective socioeconomic status
and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries.
Nat. Commun. 14 (1), 5453.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., 2020. A validity-based framework for
understanding replication in psychology. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 24 (4), 316–344.
Falk, A., Fischbacher, U., 2006. A theory of reciprocity. Game. Econ. Behav. 54 (2),
293–315.
Field, A., 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage, London, England.
Fitzsimmons, J.A., 1985. Consumer participation and productivity in service operations.
Interfaces 15 (3), 60–67.
Folwarczny, M., Christensen, J.D., Li, N.P., Sigurdsson, V., Otterbring, T., 2021. Crisis
communication, anticipated food scarcity, and food preferences: Preregistered
evidence of the insurance hypothesis. Food Qual. Preference 91, 104213.
Folwarczny, M., Otterbring, T., 2021. Secure and sustainable but not as prominent
among the ambivalent: attachment style and proenvironmental consumption. Pers.
Indiv. Differ. 183, 111154.
Folwarczny, M., Otterbring, T., Ares, G., 2023. Sustainable food choices as an impression
management strategy. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 49, 100969.
Folwarczny, M., Otterbring, T., Sigurdsson, V., Tan, L.K., Li, N.P., 2022. Old Minds, New
Marketplaces: How Evolved Psychological Mechanisms Trigger Mismatched Food
Preferences”. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences.
Gallucci, M., Perugini, M., 2000. An experimental test of a game-theoretical model of
reciprocity. J. Behav. Decis. Making 13 (4), 367–389.
Gasiorowska, A., Folwarczny, M., Tan, L.K., Otterbring, T., 2023. Delicate dining with a
date and burger binging with buddies: impression management across social settings
and consumers’ preferences for masculine or feminine foods. Front. Nutr. 10,
1127409.
Gächter, S., Herrmann, B., 2009. Reciprocity, culture and human cooperation: previous
insights and a new cross-cultural experiment. Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci. 364 (1518),
791–806.
Gidlöf, K., Lahm, E.S., Wallin, A., Otterbring, T., 2021. Eco depletion: the impact of
hunger on prosociality by means of environmentally friendly attitudes and behavior.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 62, 102654.
Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M., Blanton, H., Russell, D.W., 1998. Reasoned action and social
reaction: willingness and intention as independent predictors of health risk. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 74 (5), 1164–1180.
Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B., Griskevicius, V., 2008. A room with a viewpoint: using
social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35
(3), 472–482.
Gupta, A., Pachar, N., Jain, A., Govindan, K., Jha, P.C., 2023. Resource reallocation
strategies for sustainable efficiency improvement of retail chains. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 73, 103309.
Griskevicius, V., Cantú, S.M., Van Vugt, M., 2012. The evolutionary bases for sustainable
behavior: implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. J. Publ.
Pol. Market. 31 (1), 115–128.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., Van den Bergh, B., 2010. Going green to be seen: status,
reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98 (3), 392–404.
Groth, M., 2005. Customers as good soldiers: examining citizenship behaviors in internet
service deliveries. J. Manag. 31 (1), 7–27.
Gruijters, S.L., 2022. Making inferential leaps: manipulation checks and the road towards
strong inference. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 98, 104251.
Hauser, D.J., Ellsworth, P.C., Gonzalez, R., 2018. Are manipulation checks necessary?
Front. Psychol. 9, 998.
Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., Norenzayan, A., 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behav.
Brain Sci. 33 (2–3), 61–83.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K.A., Smith, V.L., 1998. Behavioral foundations of reciprocity:
experimental economics and evolutionary psychology. Econ. Inq. 36 (3), 335–352.
Howell, D.C., 2012. Statistical Methods for Psychology” Cengage Learning.
Hummel, D., Maedche, A., 2019. How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the
effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and
Experimental Economics 80, 47–58.
Kallgren, C.A., Reno, R.R., Cialdini, R.B., 2000. A focus theory of normative conduct:
when norms do and do not affect behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 (8),
1002–1012.
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., Steg, L., 2008. The spreading of disorder. Science 322 (5908),
1681–1685.
Khare, A., Inman, J.J., 2009. Daily, week-part, and holiday patterns in consumers’
caloric intake. J. Publ. Pol. Market. 28 (2), 234–252.
Kihlstrom, J.F., 2021. Ecological validity and ‘ecological validity. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.
16 (22), 466–471.
Krupka, E.L., Croson, R.T., 2016. The differential impact of social norms cues on
charitable contributions. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 128, 149–158.
2024 Konuk, F. A. and Otterbring, T. (2024), “The dark side of going green: dark triad
traits predict organic consumption through virtue signaling, status signaling, and
praise from others”, J. Retailing Consum. Serv., Vol. 76, pp. 103531..
Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., Graepel, T., 2013. Private traits and attributes are predictable
from digital records of human behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110 (15),
5802–5805.
Kühnen, U., 2010. Manipulation checks as manipulation: another look at the ease-of-
retrieval heuristic. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36 (1), 47–58.
Larson, R.B., 2019. Controlling social desirability bias. Int. J. Mark. Res. 61 (5), 534–547.
Loebnitz, N., Frank, P., Otterbring, T., 2022. Stairway to organic heaven: the impact of
social and temporal distance in print ads. J. Bus. Res. 139, 1044–1057.
Loschelder, D.D., Siepelmeyer, H., Fischer, D., Rubel, J.A., 2019. Dynamic norms drive
sustainable consumption: norm-based nudging helps café customers to avoid
disposable to-go-cups. J. Econ. Psychol. 75, 102146.
Mair, J., Bergin-Seers, S., 2010. The effect of interventions on the environmental
behaviour of Australian motel guests. Tourism Hospit. Res. 10 (4), 255–268.
Mäkivierikko, A., Siepelmeyer, H., Shahrokni, H., Enarsson, D., Kordas, O., 2023. Pause
hours’-A community-based behavioural demand response approach to peak load
reduction. J. Clean. Prod., 137064
Manaktola, K., Jauhari, V., 2007. Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards
green practices in the lodging industry in India. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 19
(5), 364–377.
Matz, S.C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., Stillwell, D.J., 2017. Psychological targeting as an
effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114 (48),
12714–12719.
Melnyk, V., Carrillat, F.A., Melnyk, V., 2022. The influence of social norms on consumer
behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Market. 86 (3), 98–120.
Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U.J., Brosch, T., 2022. The effectiveness of nudging: a
meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119 (1), e2107346118.
Milkman, K.L., Beshears, J., Choi, J.J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B.C., 2021a. Using
implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 (26), 10415–10420.
Milkman, K.L., Gromet, D., Ho, H., Kay, J.S., Lee, T.W., Pandiloski, P., Park, Y., Rai, A.,
Bazerman, M., Beshears, J., et al., 2021b. Megastudies improve the impact of applied
behavioural science. Nature 600 (7889), 478–483.
Miller, J.G., Goyal, N., Wice, M., 2017. A cultural psychology of agency: morality,
motivation, and reciprocity. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 (5), 867–875.
Mitchell, G., 2012. Revisiting truth or triviality: the external validity of research in the
psychological laboratory. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7 (2), 109–117.
Montzka, S.A., Dlugokencky, E.J., Butler, J.H., 2011. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and
climate change. Nature 476 (7358), 43–50.
Morales, A.C., Amir, O., Lee, L., 2017. Keeping it real in experimental
research—understanding when, where, and how to enhance realism and measure
consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 44 (2), 465–476.
Morales, A.C., Fitzsimons, G.J., 2007. Product contagion: changing consumer evaluations
through physical contact with “disgusting” products. J. Market. Res. 44 (2),
272–283.
Morris, B.S., Chrysochou, P., Christensen, J.D., Orquin, J.L., Barraza, J., Zak, P.J.,
Mitkidis, P., 2019. Stories vs. facts: triggering emotion and action-taking on climate
change. Climatic Change 154 (1), 19–36.
Nguyen, H.V., Nguyen, C.H., Hoang, T.T.B., 2019. Green consumption: closing the
intention-behavior gap. Sustain. Dev. 27 (1), 118–129.
Nisa, C., Varum, C., Botelho, A., 2017. Promoting sustainable hotel guest behavior: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Cornell Hospit. Quart. 58 (4), 354–363.
Nolan, J.M., Schultz, P.W., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., Griskevicius, V., 2008.
Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 (7),
913–923.
Nowak, M.A., Sigmund, K., 2005. Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437 (7063),
1291–1298.
O’Keefe, D.J., 2003. Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks:
claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects
research. Commun. Theor. 13 (3), 251–274.
Otterbring, T., 2020. Appetite for destruction: counterintuitive effects of attractive faces
on people’s food choices. Psychol. Market. 37 (11), 1451–1464.
Otterbring, T., 2021a. Evolutionary psychology in marketing: deep, debated, but fancier
with fieldwork. Psychol. Market. 38 (2), 229–238.
Otterbring, T., 2021b. Peer presence promotes popular choices: a “Spicy” field study on
social influence and brand choice. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 61, 102594.
Otterbring, T., Bhatnagar, R., Folwarczny, M., 2022a. Selecting the special or choosing
the common? A high-powered conceptual replication of Kim and Markus’ (1999) pen
study. J. Soc. Psychol. 1–7.
Otterbring, T., Folwarczny, M., 2022. Firstborns buy better for the greater good: birth
order differences in green consumption values. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 186, 111353.
Otterbring, T., Lu, C., 2018. Clothes, condoms, and customer satisfaction: the effect of
employee mere presence on customer satisfaction depends on the shopping situation.
Psychol. Market. 35 (6), 454–462.
T. Otterbring and M. Folwarczny
Otterbring, T., Rolschau, K., Furrebøe, E.F., Nyhus, E.K., 2022b. Crossmodal
correspondences between typefaces and food preferences drive congruent choices
but not among young consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 96, 104376.
Otterbring, T., Samuelsson, P., Arsenovic, J., Elbæk, C.T., Folwarczny, M., 2023a.
Shortsighted sales or long-lasting loyalty? The impact of salesperson-customer
proximity on consumer responses and the beauty of bodily boundaries. Eur. J.
Market. 57 (7), 1854–1885.
Otterbring, T., Shams, P., 2019. Mirror, mirror, on the menu: visual reminders of
overweight stimulate healthier meal choices. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 47,
177–183.
Otterbring, T., Sundie, J., Li, Y.J., Hill, S., 2020. Evolutionary psychological consumer
research: bold, bright, but better with behavior. J. Bus. Res. 120, 473–484.
Otterbring, T., Viglia, G., Grazzini, L., Das, G., 2023b. Guest editorial: favoring fieldwork
makes marketing more meaningful. Eur. J. Market. 57 (7), 1793–1803.
Palmatier, R.W., Jarvis, C.B., Bechkoff, J.R., Kardes, F.R., 2009. The role of customer
gratitude in relationship marketing. J. Market. 73 (5), 1–18.
Pettifor, H., Wilson, C., Axsen, J., Abrahamse, W., Anable, J., 2017. Social influence in
the global diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles–A meta-analysis. J. Transport Geogr.
62, 247–261.
Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., Damer, E., 2022. Data quality of
platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behav. Res. Methods 54 (4),
1643–1662.
Pomery, E.A., Gibbons, F.X., Reis-Bergan, M., Gerrard, M., 2009. From willingness to
intention: experience moderates the shift from reactive to reasoned behavior. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35 (7), 894–908.
Prentice, C., Nguyen, M., 2020. Engaging and retaining customers with AI and employee
service. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. (56), 102186
Raworth, K., 2017. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st
century. Lancet Planet. Health 1, e48–e49.
Reno, R.R., Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., 1993. The transsituational influence of social
norms. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 64 (1), 104–112.
Rosenbaum, M.S., Massiah, C.A., 2007. When customers receive support from other
customers: exploring the influence of intercustomer social support on customer
voluntary performance. J. Serv. Res. 9 (3), 257–270.
Rosenthal, R., 1994. Interpersonal expectancy effects: a 30-year perspective. Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 3 (6), 176–179.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R.L., 2009. Artifacts in Behavioral Research: Robert Rosenthal
and Ralph L. Rosnow’s Classic Books”. Oxford University Press.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R.L., 1985. Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the
Analysis of Variance. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Rosnow, R.L., Rosenthal, R., 1996. Computing contrasts, effect sizes, and counternulls on
other people’s published data: general procedures for research consumers. Psychol.
Methods 1 (4), 331–340.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R.L., Rubin, D.B., 2000. Contrasts and Effect Sizes in Behavioral
Research: A Correlational Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Rosnow, R.L., Rosenthal, R., 1989. Statistical procedures and the justification of
knowledge in psychological science. Am. Psychol. 44 (10), 1276–1284.
Rozin, P., Markwith, M., McCauley, C., 1994. Sensitivity to indirect contacts with other
persons: AIDS aversion as a composite of aversion to strangers, infection, moral taint,
and misfortune. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 103 (3), 495–504.
Schmidt, S., 2009. Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is
neglected in the social sciences. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2 (13), 90–100.
Schultz, P.W., Bator, R.J., Large, L.B., Bruni, C.M., Tabanico, J.J., 2013. Littering in
context: personal and environmental predictors of littering behavior. Environ.
Behav. 45 (1), 35–59.
Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., Griskevicius, V., 2007. The
constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18
(5), 429–434.
Sheeran, P., Webb, T.L., 2016. The intention–behavior gap. Soc. Personality Psychol.
Compass 10 (9), 503–518.
12
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 76 (2024) 103612
Shrout, P.E., Rodgers, J.L., 2018. Psychology, science, and knowledge construction:
broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 69 (1),
487–510.
Siepelmeyer, H., Otterbring, T., 2022. Citizen coherence and cultivated cleanliness: using
technology-induced social norms to strengthen sustainable household bonds. Front.
Sustain. 3, 899938.
Sigall, H., Mills, J., 1998. Measures of independent variables and mediators are useful in
social psychology experiments: but are they necessary? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2 (3),
218–226.
Smith, L.G., Thomas, E.F., McGarty, C., 2015. We must be the change we want to see in
the world: integrating norms and identities through social interaction. Polit. Psychol.
36 (5), 543–557.
Soyer, M., Dittrich, K., 2021. Sustainable consumer behavior in purchasing, using and
disposing of clothes. Sustainability 13 (15), 8333.
Söderlund, M., 2022. When service robots look at themselves in the mirror: an
examination of the effects of perceptions of robotic self-recognition. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 64, 102820.
Söderlund, M., Julander, C.R., 2009. Physical attractiveness of the service worker in the
moment of truth and its effects on customer satisfaction. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
16 (3), 216–226.
Stoet, G., 2017. PsyToolkit: a novel web-based method for running online questionnaires
and reaction-time experiments. Teach. Psychol. 44 (1), 24–31.
Stoet, G., 2010. PsyToolkit: a software package for programming psychological
experiments using Linux. Behav. Res. Methods 42 (4), 1096–1104.
Sun, Y., Kim, K.H., Kim, J., 2014. Examining relationships among sustainable
orientation, perceived sustainable marketing performance, and customer equity in
fast fashion industry. J. Glob. Fashion Market. 5 (1), 74–86.
Sundie, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Griskevicius, V., Kenrick, D.T., 2012. The world’s (truly)
oldest profession: social influence in evolutionary perspective. Soc. Influ. 7 (3),
134–153.
Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M., 1995. What theory is not. Adm. Sci. Q. 40 (3), 371–384.
Staats, B.R., Dai, H., Hofmann, D., Milkman, K.L., 2017. Motivating process compliance
through individual electronic monitoring: an empirical examination of hand hygiene
in healthcare. Manag. Sci. 63 (5), 1563–1585.
Terrier, L., Marfaing, B., 2015. Using social norms and commitment to promote
proenvironmental behavior among hotel guests. J. Environ. Psychol. 44, 10–15.
Trudel, R., 2019. Sustainable consumer behavior. Consumer Psychol. Rev. 2 (1), 85–96.
UNDP, 2021. The 17 Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals. (Accessed 29 November 2022).
Van Tonder, E., Fullerton, S., De Beer, L.T., Saunders, S.G., 2023. Social and personal
factors influencing green customer citizenship behaviours: the role of subjective
norm, internal values and attitudes. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 71, 103190.
Wolff, F., Schönherr, N., 2011. The impact evaluation of sustainable consumption policy
instruments. J. Consum. Pol. 34 (1), 43–66.
Wynes, S., Nicholas, K.A., 2017. The climate mitigation gap: education and government
recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ. Res. Lett. 12
(7), 074024.
Yadav, A., Phillips, M.M., Lundeberg, M.A., Koehler, M.J., Hilden, K., Dirkin, K.H., 2011.
If a picture is worth a thousand words is video worth a million? Differences in
affective and cognitive processing of video and text cases. J. Comput. High Educ. 23
(1), 15–37.
Yan, L., Keh, H.T., Wang, X., 2021. Powering sustainable consumption: the roles of green
consumption values and power distance belief. J. Bus. Ethics 169 (3), 499–516.
Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R., Gong, T., 2011. Customer participation and citizenship behavioral
influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover
intention. J. Bus. Res. 64 (1), 87–95.
Youyou, W., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., 2015. Computer-based personality judgments are
more accurate than those made by humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112 (4),
1036–1040.
Zielke, S., Komor, M., Schlößer, A., 2023. Coping strategies and intended change of
shopping habits after the Corona pandemic–Insights from two countries in Western
and Eastern Europe. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 72, 103255.